and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was closer to the original novel than the '71 film. How'd that work out?

quote:you should check out one of those novels Kafka is speaking of.

I have. I've also been to the Spy Museum in DC and seen the endless parallels between Bond and the reality he was based on. The wit and dangerous playfulness are a part of it, and shitty wooden Bond is shitty and wooden.

Face it. They wanted him to be more like the more recently successful Jason Bourne (another ruined franchise), and the result is mediocre at best.

quote:The wit and dangerous playfulness are a part of it, and shitty wooden Bond is shitty and wooden.

Face it. They wanted him to be more like the more recently successful Jason Bourne (another ruined franchise), and the result is mediocre at best.

I agree. Great action movie but it is not Bond. What is missing is the suave, cultured, quintessential English gentlemen that belies the deadliest of assassins. Sean Connery played this perfectly IMO. Brosnan would be my second-best, with Moore coming in as a childhood favorite(but more over the top). The new films are great if you look at them like an English Bourne. I actually though Q of S played much better than Casino Royale.